Jim Rose models a possible $1.5 billion tax cut package in 2015. This is made possible by keeping the new spending for this year and next to $1 billion instead of $1.5 billion.

He notes:

No serious participant in public policy debate could suggest that tax cuts of the size in table 1 will not have incentive effects that will lead to growth in incomes and business profits. There will be offsetting tax revenue increases that make a more ambitious tax package possible in 2017.

Using dynamic scoring, Rose calculates we could afford to do the following:

Top tax rate down 2% to 31%

Upper Middle tax rate down 3% to 27%

Middle tax rate down 1% to 16.5%

Trust tax rate down 2% to 31%

Corporate tax rate down 1% to 27%

That would see someone earning $70,000 have their tax drop by $1,000 or $20 a week.

So we will be expected to tug our forelocks and thank the dickhead from Dipton for giving us some of our own fucking money back while he and his Labour lite government hand out increases to the bludgers and parasites.

While I could never bring myself to vote for the scum from the left I am starting to think that I simply will not bother voting next time around. I am so sick and tired of seeing my fucking money wasted on losers and the feckless.

jp_1983

freedom101

Due to bracket creep, that National have done nothing about, it is not a tax cut at all. It’s just reversing some of the bracket creep. I’d be impressed only if brackets were automatically indexed to inflation as part of the package. This could have been done this year and with inflation so low it would have had very little fiscal impact. Instead we have cloak and dagger tax increases from National. Very disappointing.

Fentex

Could tax cuts in 2017 be quite significant?

If our national debt isn’t repaid because of it, then yes it could really be significant.

Deficits (which National has constantly run to date) are okay if they’re not allowed to create too large a sizeable debt which won’t happen if after a lean period debt is repaid – which can only happen if tax rates are higher than everyone would like (to bring in the otherwise unnecessary surplus to retire debt).

Reluctance to tax more than we like is not something to admire in a government when it’s necessary.

Even if one supports the idea of a tiny government and miniscule taxation there’s a responsibility to meet obligations before adopting that policy.

RossM

It would probably make more sense to concentrate the benefits at the lower end of the scale and offer tax cuts for people who might usually vote Labour. That is, give pretty well everyone the same dollar tax cut. This is not a time for ideology but for pragmatically winning a fourth term.

thedavincimode

It would probably make more sense to concentrate the benefits at the lower end of the scale and offer tax cuts for people who might usually vote Labour.

The real reason to do this RossM is to stop treating the lowest paid like second-class citizens and political footballs by taking more tax off them than they can afford to survive such that their income then needs to be topped up by paternalistic state welfare. Just don’t take it off them in the first place – let them keep their money and their dignity.

CharlieBrown

Well we are paying more money in real terms towards tax tax now than we were when national got to power. So if national were to cut the tax rates slightly to take it back to the levels it was in 2008 most national fanatics will think job well done, even though they have been fleecing us for the last 9 years.

Helen Clark and Michael Cullen must be soo proud of their prodigal child John Key.

RossM

gazzmaniac – do some research. If you give benefits at the lower end of the scale then EVERYONE benefits because there will be less tax under $20,000 (say). The first x dollars gets taxed at y%, the next z dollars gets taxed at w% etc. If the benefits cut in at the top (reducing the top rate from 33% to 30% for example) then ONLY the highest paid people will benefit.

“Helen Clark and Michael Cullen must be soo proud of their prodigal child John Key.”

I seriously doubt it. And Key is not their prodigal child to begin with. Imbibing the “trueblue” koolaid will melt your brain.

” So if national were to cut the tax rates slightly to take it back to the levels it was in 2008 most national fanatics will think job well done, even though they have been fleecing us for the last 9 years.”

GFC. Christchurch earthquake. Plus, National does not have a democratic mandate to indulge in slash and burn economic policies.

themanwhowatches

Regardless of any tax cuts, which – unlikely as they seem to be – would almost certainly be directed at the lower income levels as a purely political survival strategy, I for one will not forgive this Government if it does not deal to the utterly punitive provisional tax system. This, and Bill English knows it, is crushing to small businesses and the self employed. Time he fronted up to it.

Scott

Lower taxes would be good. It’s been hard with the economic downturn and the Christchurch rebuild making things tough.
So I am keen on any tax cuts. But I would like national to be bolder and less taxes and lower GST

thedavincimode

gazzmaniac

gazzmaniac – do some research. If you give benefits at the lower end of the scale then EVERYONE benefits because there will be less tax under $20,000 (say). The first x dollars gets taxed at y%, the next z dollars gets taxed at w% etc. If the benefits cut in at the top (reducing the top rate from 33% to 30% for example) then ONLY the highest paid people will benefit.

I know how progressive taxation works. I’m not a retard.
I think that income tax needs to be flatter and lower. At all levels, not just for low incomes.

CharlieBrown

“Helen Clark and Michael Cullen must be soo proud of their prodigal child John Key.”

I seriously doubt it. And Key is not their prodigal child to begin with. Imbibing the “trueblue” koolaid will melt your brain.

” So if national were to cut the tax rates slightly to take it back to the levels it was in 2008 most national fanatics will think job well done, even though they have been fleecing us for the last 9 years.”

GFC. Christchurch earthquake. Plus, National does not have a democratic mandate to indulge in slash and burn economic policies.

Nobody is fleecing you.

So says nationals biggest brown-nosing sychophant. National had a mandate to remove the ban on smacking, so don’t give me any of this mandate bullshit. National opposed nearly every bloody policy helen and michael implemented and have embraced them under john key. John Key is the bastard love child of Michael Cullen and helen Clark… figuratively speaking. National regained popularity under Don Brash with his policies of removing maori seats, reworkign the RMA, removing excessive beuracracy, market rents for state housing and so on, stuff that the mutant love child won’t go near..

The only difference between national and labour is that national prefers to get favoured businesses to run their socialist programs, whereas labour prefers their unions. The fact that that hypocritical socialist bastard john key has embellished working for families after decrying it as communism in disguise is disgraceful. FFS, look at kiwirail – it should be scrapped but as all good socialists do they throw good money after bad.

Zapper

themanwhowatches

Davinci – provisional tax is concessional? Please explain. In fact it is punitive, because if you cannot accurately estimate your annual income as the basis for your payments – each of which is based on your annual projection and not your actual earnings – you will be charged penalties and interest at rates which currently are four to five times the OCR. So, get your “guesstimate” of annual income wrong and you will definitely be punished.

burt

Penny Bright

When are thinking folks going to REALLY concentrate on where tax (and rates monies) are being SPENT?

Tax and rates, two things you don’t pay. You have no skin in this game being a net drain on the tax and rate payers yet you still bleat on that wealthy people should pay more. You are in the top band of wealthy in this country Penny having a freehold house in Auckland. You a not a lefty because if you were you’d contribute to the society you sponge off rather than sit on that enormous mountain of capital and contribute nothing !